| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> | 
| Cc: | Nozomi Anzai <anzai(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: 64-bit API for large object | 
| Date: | 2012-09-28 14:35:55 | 
| Message-ID: | 1348842697-sup-7035@alvh.no-ip.org | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of jue sep 27 01:01:18 -0300 2012:
> * I have a question. What is the meaning of INT64_IS_BUSTED?
>   It seems to me a marker to indicate a platform without 64bit support.
>   However, the commit 901be0fad4034c9cf8a3588fd6cf2ece82e4b8ce
>   says as follows:
>   | Remove all the special-case code for INT64_IS_BUSTED, per decision that
>   | we're not going to support that anymore.
Yeah, I think we should just get rid of those bits.  I don't remember
seeing *any* complaint when INT64_IS_BUSTED was removed, which means
nobody was using that code anyway.
Now there is one more problem in this area which is that the patch
defined a new type pg_int64 for frontend code (postgres_ext.h).  This
seems a bad idea to me.  We already have int64 defined in c.h.  Should
we expose int64 to postgres_ext.h somehow?  Should we use standard-
mandated int64_t instead?  One way would be to have a new configure
check for int64_t, and if that type doesn't exist, then just don't
provide the 64 bit functionality to frontend.
-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karl O. Pinc | 2012-09-28 16:10:32 | Doc patch, put pg_temp into the documentation's index | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-28 14:10:34 | Re: setting per-database/role parameters checks them against wrong context |